> On 2019-01-08, at 22:45, Mia Magnusson <mia@plea.se> wrote: > > > The simple solution for a computer technician at the time would be to > stock longer cables with all connectors mounted, and charging the > customer extra if they weren't satisfied with whichever configuration > that were possible with the shorter cables. Sure. Today it seems obvious. It's just that back then, in some places on the globe, it was easier said than done. Over time I collected enough leftovers that could help and also lower level parts (like cables you mention) became slowly available. Of course my inability to source such simple parts easily was not the fault of IBM's engineering team as Mike tries to tell me in a sarcastic tone, but this kind of problems as well as drives, which can't be jumpered to chosen select line (and used in other systems, which adhered to the standard instead of twisting cables) wouldn't exist if people at IBM hadn't done that first twist. > In my experience, the problems weren't the twisted cables but rather > that there were different connector types on 5.25" v.s. 3.5" drives > and on the original IBM PC/XT floppy controller v.s. most other floppy > controllers, and also the position of the connectors that weren't at > the cables end could case problems regardless of which order you wanted > the drives at. That too. But it wasn't really the problem of the cable being twisted but rather that this made the drive's logical ID to be position dependent and therefore limiting possible configurations. -- SD! - http://e4aws.silverdr.com/Received on 2019-01-09 14:00:13
Archive generated by hypermail 2.2.0.